26/09/2007 - How did the MTHR report get so misreported?

Summary

On the 12th September the MTHR press-released their first published report on the "Mobile Telecommunications & Health Research" programme that has been running since 2001. The research programme covered a number of important recent papers on mobile telecommunications and health, including the much publicised INTERPHONE work. Sadly, the press-release did a very poor job of explaining what the findings were and gave the national press the view that it basically gave the all clear, with a few minor possibilities to clear up with further research. This incorrect message was reinforced by releasing the report through the Science Media Centre (SMC) who only invite and allow selected national media reporters to attend and so few challenging questions are usually asked. No-one else was allowed to see a copy of the report until after the Press Briefing had finished. The SMC freely admit that they specifically exclude press with strong non main-line views and those with links to groups such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and other campaigning groups.

With regards to cancer and phone exposure, there have been a number of flaws with some of the INTERPHONE epidemiological work, as we have covered previously (November 2006, December 2006, January 2007). It is looking as if the increase in brain cancer risk over the first 10 years is minimal to non-existent, but it is hardly surprisingly for a disease with a typical latency period of 15 to 25 years. They have concluded that after 10 years the situation is not clear, but failed to mention in their press release that some of their own research actually found statistically significant increases for brain tumours with of over 10 years of mobile phone use (in fairness, this is mentioned in the report itself, with the strange caveat that despite mathematical statistical significance the data is "not convincingly significant").

It also summarises that "The MTHR programme also investigated whether mobile phones might affect cells and tissue beyond simply heating them. The results so far show no evidence for this and the committee believes there is no need to support further work in this area." This is also in stark contrast to the more detailed summary of work to be found in the 291 page 2004 REFLEX report (10.8 MB .pdf) which found a number of significant and replicated genetic and cellular effects from microwave radiation. Further to this, there are a number of other peer reviewed papers going back decades finding similar effects referenced in the rest of this article.

It is always difficult when a programme such as this completes, and decides to neglect most of the literature outside of the studies involved in the programme itself when summarising the "current state of understanding". It is hardly news that there have been a large number of studies finding serious health effects from RF radiation exposure, a fact we pointed out on this site 9 years ago! Nevertheless, as the MTHR press release has attempted to make the phone issue sound largely resolved, it only seems fit to attempt to bring attention to the swathes of evidence ignored by the report.

Media coverage

The Times

Nigel Hawkes, health editor of The Times managed to give his readers a good impression that the whole phone issue is a clear non-problem, and comes up with a number of factually incorrect statements:

"As far as we can tell, on the experience gained so far, there is no evidence mobile phones or the masts that broadcast signals can damage anybody's health, and that includes children."

A strange statement considering the evidence from the MTHR programme itself on long term phone use and brain cancer[1][2], Hardell's work on phone use and brain cancer[3][4][5][6], and all of the literature finding "Microwave Syndrome" effects[7][8][9][10][11].

"Experience of widescale use of mobile phones is only about a decade old, however, and children have only started using them in large numbers even more recently. It remains just possible that longer-term studies will reveal some link to cancer, which takes at least a decade to manifest itself."

Aside from the misleading use of language (e.g. the unnecessary use of "remains just possible" when simply "is possible" would have done fine), it is also wrong. Longer-term studies already have revealed a link to cancer, and the increase has been found to be statistically significant (i.e. with only a 5% chance of being a "non-real" increase).[1][2][3][4][5][6]

"The odds of this are very low, because the experiments so far have shown no plausible biological mechanism by which cancer could be triggered. Radio-frequency radiation does not damage DNA, and nor has any other effect been found that could provide such a mechanism."

Again, this is just not true. It is fair to say there are no other accepted biological mechanisms, but there are certainly plausible theorised mechanisms awaiting further confirmation[12][13]. It is also wrong to claim that radio frequency radiation can not damage DNA, as there is already peer-reviewed evidence for this[14][15], and other genetic and cellular effects.[16][17][18][19][20]

"The mobile phone scare has always lacked plausibility. Radio frequency signals have been around since the invention of radio - more than a century - without evidence of ill-effects among those who work closely with them."

It can only have lacked plausibility for those that are not aware of the evidence. Aside from the obvious and well documented points that modern pulsed RF transmissions are considerably different in nature to the continuous wave radio transmissions that have been ubiquitous for so long, there has also been evidence up to 3 decades ago of possible increases in risk of adverse health effects from microwave radiation[21][22][23][24]. More recently there is even some research finding links to cancer with standard AM radio transmitter aerials.[25][26].

"All that remains, like the grin of a vanishing Cheshire Cat, is the tiny hint, not reaching statistical significance, of an increased risk of some brain cancers in long-term users. This must be followed up, clearly, but for the moment there is no evidence that mobile phones pose any risks at all."

This is simply poor reporting. As shown above, there is more than a hint of evidence which does in fact reach statistical significance. Summarising in this way is simply lying to the British public in a national newspaper, on an issue where the public is confused enough already. It is vital that science reporters go the extra mile and put in research before commenting on areas where they are ignorant themselves.

Other media coverage

In fairness, this is the worst of the bunch. For example, aside from the heavily misleading titles, the Belfast Telegraph and Independant articles were more objectively written, and only suffered from taking too much of the MTHR's press release as fact. The Telegraph also covered the story, and is probably the best reflection of the MTHR report in the mainstream media, and the Daily Mail covered the story and gave due attention to the very real possibility of a long term cancer risk, but was sadly the only one to give it prominence in its article -- all external press links below: